🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish spouses have filed a lawsuit against The Met, alleging that a Van Gogh canvas was seized by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

As stated in the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern acquired the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. Just one year later, they were forced to flee their dwelling in Munich just before the Second World War.

The suit contends that the institution, which acquired the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for $125,000, should have known it was likely looted property. The family are now requesting the restitution of the canvas along with financial restitution.

In the decades since WWII, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through the city of New York, states the lawsuit.

The Sterns' Escape

The Sterns escaped from the city of Munich to California in the late 1930s with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities declared the artwork as property of the state and forbade the couple from exporting it. Once approved from a regime representative, a representative designated by the Nazis auctioned the piece on the couple's behalf. But, the funds from the auction were deposited in a restricted account, which the authorities later took.

Later Transactions

Around 1948, or not long after, the artwork entered NYC and was acquired by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was transferred through a gallery to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate the magnate and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple established the BEG in 1979, which operates a gallery in Athens where the painting is currently on display.

Court Allegations

The institution and a family member of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action states that the Goulandris family and its related entities have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and current place from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the circumstances the BEG came into control of the Painting; the couple's ownership of the Painting from several years; and the reality that the Nazis stole the artwork from the heirs, pressured the Sterns into disposing of it via a regime representative, and took the proceeds of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants submitted a similar complaint in California in the year 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An further action was also dismissed in recently.

The Met's Position

The legal action contends that the Met's purchase of the painting was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the artwork had almost certainly been seized by Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to resolve claims from the Nazi period.

An official remarked: Not once during The Met's ownership of the painting was there any evidence that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – actually, that data did not become known until many years after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The Met's sale of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for deaccessioning – in particular, it was recorded that the artwork was deemed to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the same type in the holdings. Even though The Met respectfully stands by its view that this artwork entered the inventory and was sold lawfully and well within all standards and procedures, the institution invites and will examine any new information that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer acting for the foundation said: The institution is a renowned institution in Athens. The effort to litigate and defame the institution and the defendants in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, twice. We are convinced it will be a third time.